Lawmakers in North Dakota — where consumers can sue Big Tech and a judge recently exempted religious physicians from doing Obamacare “sex change” operations — are proposing a law allowing the state to ignore presidential executive orders if they don’t meet constitutional muster.
House Bill 1164, introduced for the 2021 session, says the “legislative management may review any executive order issued by the president of the United States which has not been affirmed by a vote of the Congress of the United States and signed into law as prescribed by the Constitution of the United States and recommend to the attorney general and the governor that the executive order be further reviewed.”
It also allows for a review of an executive order by the attorney general “to determine the constitutionality of the order and whether the state should seek an exemption from the application of the order or seek to have the order declared to be an unconstitutional exercise of legislative authority by the president.”
It states that “political subdivision” can implement such an order “that restricts a person’s rights or that the attorney general determines to be unconstitutional under subsection 1 and which relates to: a. pandemics or other health emergencies; b. the regulation of natural resources, including coal and oil; c. the regulation of the agriculture industry; d. the use of land; 3. The regulation of the financial sector… or; f. the regulation of the constitutional right to keep and bear arms.”
National File reported Republican state Rep. Sebastian Ertelt has introduced a separate bill that would affect the same fate to unconstitutional legislation by Congress.
His Committee on Neutralization of Federal Laws, comprised of state legislative leadership and appointees, would advise whether a given federal law or regulation is unconstitutional.
“Should the committee find that a law or regulation is unconstitutional, the North Dakota Legislature would pass a concurrent resolution on whether to nullify the transgressing law or edict,” the report said.
In North Dakota, Republicans are the majority in the Senate, 40-7, and in the House, 80-14.
South Dakota bill seeks power to reject presidential executive orders https://t.co/krkDMXAJSP
— Samantha Sullivan (@SamSullivan) February 1, 2021
Another bill would enable people who have been censored by Twitter and Facebook to sue the tech monopolies.
House Bill 1144 would “permit civil actions against social media sites for censoring speech.”
“If an interactive computer service provider restricts, censors or suppresses information that does not pertain to obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable subject matter, the interactive computer service provider is liable in a civil action for damages to the person whose speech is restricted, censored, or suppressed, and to any person who reasonably otherwise would have received the writing, speech, or publication,” the bill states.
It requires that the defendant be immune from civil liability under federal law, not be considered a publisher and have over 1 million users.
In North Dakota in January a federal judge issued a ruling that protects some doctors from an Obamacare requirement to perform gender “change” surgeries.
In a case brought by the Religious Sisters of Mercy, Catholic Benefits Association and others, U.S. District Judge Peter Welte in North Dakota granted a request to prevent the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission from enforcing the Obamacare requirement.
It forces health care providers to perform gender-reassignment surgeries.
“The court declares that HHS’s interpretation of Section 1557 that requires the Catholic plaintiffs to perform and provide insurance coverage for gender-transition procedures violates their sincerely held religious beliefs without satisfying strict scrutiny under the [Religious Freedom Restoration Act],” the judge said.
“Accordingly, the court permanently enjoins and restrains HHS, Secretary Azar, their divisions, bureaus, agents, officers, commissioners, employees, and anyone acting in concert or participation with them, including their successors in office, from interpreting or enforcing Section 1557 … or any implementing regulations thereto against the Catholic plaintiffs in a manner that would require them to perform or provide insurance coverage for gender-transition procedures, including by denying federal financial assistance because of their failure to perform or provide insurance coverage for such procedures or by otherwise pursuing, charging, or assessing any penalties, fines, assessments, investigations, or other enforcement actions.”